Faculty of Management and Commerce

Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences

Department Directorate of Transferable Skills Programme MBA
and Leadership Development.
Semester/Batch 2nd / 2019
Course Code 19MBA512A Course Title Business Law
Course Leader Advocate. Reet Singh
Assignment
Reg. No. 19MCMS047083 Name of SACHITH GOWDA M K
Student
Assignment
Marks
Sections

First

MarksMax
Marking Scheme Moderator
Examine
Marks
r Marks

Individual Task
Part A

A.1.1 Problem Question 10

A.1.2 Problem Question 10
Part-A Max Marks 20

Total Assignment Marks 20

 Course Marks Tabulation
Component-1 (B) Assignment First Examiner Remarks Moderator Remarks
A
Marks (out of 20 )

Signature of First Examiner Signature of Moderator

Instructions to Students:

1. The assignment consists of 1 parts.

2. Maximum marks is 20.
3. Wherever applicable, assignment has to be neatly word processed as per the prescribed
format.
4. The printed assignment must be submitted to the exam section and the practical aspects
presented before the course leaders on the assigned date.
5. Submission Date: 14th May 2020
6. Submission after the due date is not permitted.
7. IMPORTANT: It is essential that all the sources used in preparation of the assignment
must be suitably referenced in the text.
8. Marks will be awarded based on the sections and subsections attempted by the student.
Question no 1:
Discuss the grounds on which Barry may make a claim against Nogrow Ltd?
Solution:
The grounds on which Barry may make claim against Nogrow Ltd are:
 In the instructions manual of the Nogrow Ltd’s apple fertilizer had no instructions which
specified about the time duration which is required for the fertilizer to start its effect.
 There were no clear cut statements given in the instructions manual regarding the effect on
rain and other environmental factors on the fertilizer efficiency.
 According to Section 14(2) of the sales of goods Act says when a seller sells goods in the course
of business its implied terms that the goods supplied are of satisfactory quality. But the
fertilizer supplied by Nogrow Ltd didn’t serve its basic purpose. So Barry may make claim
against poor quality.
Question no 2:
Assuming Nogrow Ltd is in breach of the contract of sale discuss the validity of the terms of sale in
the invoice?
Solution:
The valid terms that can show the breach of contract are:
 Even though the Barry did not read the terms and conditions of the contract it would be
considered valid.
 The invoice which had the terms of contract was brought to Barry’s notice before signing of
contract. So, the Nogrow Ltd can argue that the terms of contract were validly incorporated.
 The court of law doesn’t accept the invoices as contractual documents.
 The terms say satisfactory quality and fits for particular purpose gives Barry right to reject the
product and can claim damages.
Question no 3:
Assuming that Agro Ltd is liable for breach of the contract of sale, and is not protected from liability
by the terms of sale in the invoice, discuss the remedies available to Barry?
Solution:
Remedies available to Barry are:
 Barry can reject the goods and can claim damage.
 Barry can receive compensation for not being able to sell the apples that he had grown.
 But he cannot claim compensation for not being able to participate in show and for his
depression and not being able to get promotion, because these are related to his personal
mistakes or faults.
Hypothetical case on breach of contract that we might encounter in our work life and the solution in
the given case is:
The most common cases we encounter in the work life are misrepresentation of assets that are being
used as collateral.
Case:
A and B are the two persons who are running business in collateral way. In this business A and B
planned to buy each one property for the business. B planned to buy larger property but A convinced
he will take larger property and asked B to take small property as a collateral business B accepted for
it. A took position of the larger property but did not pay the agreed payment to B, because he had
taken small property. When B tries to contact A regarding payment but A did not receive the call. It
was found that the property used for collateral was not worth as much it was represented and A was
negotiating intentionally.
Solution:
 This is a clear case of fraud and breach of contract as person A has made material
misrepresentation and he is also refusing to make agreed payment.
 Negotiation cannot happen in this case, so legal action must be taken against person A.
 In this case A is qualified for both compensatory and punitive damages.
 B can claim punitive damage as it is clear that A acted in bad faith and cheated person B.